1 About

This page contains supplementary material for the publication [insert bibtex].

2 Supplementary information about included interventions

2.0.1 Better Futures

2.0.1.1 Description

The Better Futures program aims to empower and support young people who are in foster care and have serious mental health challenges to enter post-secondary education. The program is grounded in self-determination and involves a range of group and one-to-one interventions designed to support participants to identify and work towards their own post-secondary goals.

2.0.1.2 Intended outcomes

The primary intended outcome is that participants enroll in higher education.

2.0.1.3 Eligibility criteria

To be enrolled in Better Futures, young people need to:

  • reside in the program’s catchment area,
  • be in the guardianship of the state foster care system,
  • be in secondary education (high school or GED program) and one or two years away from completion,
  • be open to the possibility of higher or vocation education and have not yet applied,
  • have been identified as experiencing significant mental health challenges (for example, be receiving mental health counselling, or be receiving special education services for an emotional disability or be on a psychotropic medication or be living in a therapeutic setting); and
  • be able to attend community-based sessions (i.e. not residing in a secure facility).

2.0.1.4 Delivery

Length of support: The program lasts for approximately ten months.

Mode of delivery: The program is primarily delivered by ‘Peer Coaches’ – young people under the age of 28 enrolled in higher education with lived experience of foster care and/or mental health challenges – with support from Intervention Managers. The model comprises three components: (1) A brief residential ‘summer institute’ with an emphasis on higher education preparation for young people in foster care with mental health difficulties (e.g. through campus tours, information sessions and facilitated discussions on relevant topics, and social activities. (2) One-to-one, peer coaching sessions which focus on identifying and working towards individual post-secondary goals, as well as working through a series of experiential activities and self-determination skills. (3) Group mentoring workshops in which participants and peer coaches come together for expert-guided discussions and related practical activities on relevant topics (e.g. college applications and application writing exercises).

Intensity of support: Over the course of the program, participants have access to one residential camp (of 4 days/3 nights); followed by bi-monthly, one-to-one coaching sessions for a period of nine months; and four group workshops.

Access to implementation support: The Peer Coaches are provided with approximately 40 hours of training; an intervention protocol and access to weekly group and individual supervision from Intervention Managers.

Source: Geenen et al. (2015)

2.0.2 Extended foster care (EFC) in Illinois or Washington

2.0.2.1 Description

‘Extended foster care’ (EFC) describes the extension of the age limit for foster care, and eligibility for associated support services, from 18 to 21 years of age. In the United States, the 2008 ‘Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act’ made it possible for states to implement extended foster care at state level. There is variation in EFC implementation – eligibility, funding and services provided – between states.

2.0.2.2 Intended outcomes

By enabling young people to remain in care beyond their 18th birthday and up to 21 years of age, EFC aims to improve the outcomes of foster youth into adulthood.

2.0.2.3 Eligibility criteria

To be eligible for EFC, young people need to:

  • be in foster care in the state of Illinois or Washington; and
  • be aged 18 to 21 years old.

Source: Courtney & Hook (2017), Lee, Courtney, & Hook (2012), Strahl, Breda, Mann-Feder, & Schröer (2020), Miller, Bales, & Hirsh (2020), Mendes & Rogers (2020)

2.0.3 ICare2CHECK

2.0.3.1 Description

The ICare2CHECK program is a brief health care education intervention, providing access to a health care booklet and companion website designed in collaboration with young people with lived experience of foster care, which aim to support young people transitioning out of foster care to navigate the health care system.

2.0.3.2 Intended outcomes

The primary goals of the program are to increase use of health care services by foster youth aged 16 and over and to decrease use of urgent care services.

2.0.3.3 Eligibility criteria

To be enrolled in the ICare2CHECK program, young people need to: * be in foster care under the custody of child protective services (CPS) for at least 12 months; * aged 16 years old or over; and * be approaching emancipation from CPS custody.

2.0.3.4 Delivery

Length of support: One-off receipt of health care education materials.

Mode of delivery: The ICare2CHECK program involves one-off receipt of health care education materials, including a pocket-sized booklet (‘ICareGuide’) and access to a companion website. The materials aim to support young people to navigate the health care system and include information on how and when to access medical support; information on appropriate hotlines; information on preventive health care including relating to pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections; and instructions on how to apply for health insurance. In addition, the website included interactive tools to assist young people in locating health care services and decision-making around what level of medical service to access.

Intensity of support: One-off receipt of a health care booklet and access to a companion website.

Access to implementation support: No information available.

Source: Beal, Nause, Lutz, & Greiner (2020)

2.0.4 Independent Living – Employment Services Program, Kern County, California

2.0.4.1 Description

The Independent Living – Employment Services (IL-ES) program, created in 1999 by the Department of Human Services in California, is designed to equip young people in foster care (or on probation), with the encouragement, skills and resources they require to secure employment.

2.0.4.2 Intended outcomes

The primary intended outcome of the IL-ES program is that participants obtain and maintain secure employment. Secondary goals include participants’ development of life skills and resources, enabling them to avoid use of public assistance in future.

2.0.4.3 Eligibility criteria

To be enrolled in the IL-ES program, young people need to:

  • reside in Kern County, California, the catchment area for the program;
  • be in foster care under Kern County Department of Human Services (DHS) (or have ‘aged out’ of the foster care system), be on probation or under subsidized guardianship;
  • be aged 16 to 21 years old; and
  • have been assessed as eligible for independent living services by their social worker.

2.0.4.4 Delivery

Length of support: Due to the voluntary nature of the program, the duration of support varies by individual participant. Some participants will receive only the initial letter, while others will receive regular, ongoing support up to the age of 21 years.

Mode of delivery: The IL-ES program comprises two main elements: (1) An introductory letter and subscription to a regular job listing alert and (2) one-to-one employment support. An introductory letter inviting the young person to participate in the program and weekly newsletters, highlighting job opportunities, are sent to all eligible young people. Young people who express interest in additional services are assessed by an IL-ES worker to identify their employment needs and goals and have access to a range of other one-to-one and group support. One-to-one support includes support in searching for jobs; support in preparing a CV or job application; financial and practical help in buying interview clothes; and support in accessing other services, as needed. Participants can also access employment skills workshops. Employment services are provided by qualified social services staff with training in employment support.

Intensity of support: Participants receive weekly newsletters. The intensity of one-to-one support varies according to a young person’s expressed goals, however, IL-ES staff maintain regular contact either via telephone or through face-to-face visits. Two to four employment-skills workshops are held per year.

Access to implementation support: No information available.

Source: Zinn & Courtney (2017), Courtney, Zinn, Koralek, & Bess (2011)

2.0.5 Independent Living Services

2.0.5.1 Description

‘Independent Living Services’ (ILS) encompasses the broad range of federally funded services offered to young people transitioning from foster care to independent living in the United States of America (USA). ILS service delivery varies between states; however, an emphasis is placed on education and employment services.

2.0.5.2 Intended outcomes

The primary goal of ILS is to support a successful transition into adulthood for young people leaving foster care in the USA. An emphasis is placed on ILS recipients completing high school or GED certification, and on securing employment.

2.0.5.3 Eligibility criteria

To access ILS, young people need to:

  • Be in foster care in the USA;
  • Be identified as likely to remain in foster care until the age of 18; and,
  • Meet eligibility criteria at state level.

2.0.5.4 Delivery

Length of support: No information available. Varies at individual level.

Mode of delivery: ILS academic support for high-school or GED completion may include (a) tutoring, (b) homework, and (c) provision of educational resources. ILS employment-related services that aim to support young people in securing and maintaining employment may include: (a) career or vocational assessment, (b) internships, classes, or training for skills development in a particular occupation, (c) job coaching. ILS also includes mentoring services through which eligible young people are connected with mentors, who provide regular support. Financial assistance is also provided through ILS for tuition, relevant services and supplies.

Intensity of support: No information available. Varies at individual level.

Access to implementation support: No information available.

Source: Kim, Ju, Rosenberg, & Farmer (2019)

2.0.6 Interactive Healthy Lifestyle Preparation (iHeLP)

2.0.6.1 Description

Interactive Healthy Lifestyle Preparation (iHeLP) is a computer- and mobile phone-based app that dynamically adapts to a participant’s current motivation to influence their substance use. The application is based on motivational interviewing principles. Participants complete an initial computer-based screening at baseline that seeks to assess their readiness to change. Future interaction, which is tailored to information provided during the baseline assessment, takes place through text messaging on a participant’s phone.

2.0.6.2 Intended outcomes

The primary goal of iHeLP is to reduce substance misuse by supporting participants to set goals and motivate them to follow through with them.

2.0.6.3 Eligibility criteria

To be enrolled in the iHeLP trial, young people need to meet the following criteria:

  • Aged between 18 and 19,
  • Have left foster care no more than two years ago,
  • Scored a ‘moderate’ or ‘severe’ risk on the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test,
  • Are not currently enrolled in, or seeking, substance abuse treatment,
  • Own a mobile phone, and
  • Use text messaging at least weekly.

2.0.6.4 Delivery

Length of support: Service length is not time limited, although the pilot was limited to a 12-month follow up

Mode of delivery: iHeLP is a text message-based intervention

Intensity of support: Participants are sent poll questions via notifications weekly, prompting them to engage with the app

Access to implementation support: Not available

Source: Braciszewski et al. (2018)

2.0.7 Life Skills Training Program: Los Angeles County

2.0.7.1 Description

The Life Skills Training (LST) Program of Los Angeles County was created in 1987 to equip young people in state custody, either through foster care or on probation , with the skills and resources required to live independently. program participants are provided access to a five-week classroom-based life-skills course covering core competency areas set by the State: education, employment, daily living skills, survival skills, understanding choices and consequences, interpersonal skills and IT skills. The program also has an outreach component which involves active recruitment of young people into the program and short-term case-management services.

2.0.7.2 Intended outcomes

The intended outcomes of the LST program of Los Angeles County are that young people develop the skills they require for independent living, complete their high-school education and move on to higher-education or training.

2.0.7.3 Eligibility criteria

To be enrolled in the LST program, young people need to:

  • reside within the program catchment area,
  • be aged 16 or older at referral to the program,
  • be in a foster care placement under the guardianship of the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) or on probation,
  • be referred to the program by their transition coordinator at DCFS or the Probation Department, and
  • have a goal of, or be preparing to move to, independent living.

2.0.7.4 Delivery

Length of support: The program lasts for approximately five weeks.

Mode of delivery: The LST program comprises two elements: (1) A brief classroom-based intervention offered in a convenient community college setting which covers core competency areas related to life skills and independent living. Although usually classroom-based, workshop instructors are allowed flexibility in material delivery and sessions may take the form of out-of-classroom practical activities (e.g. taking public transportation, or grocery shopping) or involve guest speakers. Pre- and post-assessments are carried out to evaluate progress in skill acquisition. Transportation, food and money are offered to remove barriers to attendance. (2) ‘Outreach’ or short-term case-management support offered by ‘Outreach Advisors’ (OAs) – typically college graduates with experience in youth work. OAs also take an active role in recruiting young people to the program, usually by visiting the young person in their home. Peer Counsellors, former foster youth and, typically, LST graduates also provide classroom assistance to the workshop instructors and general support for program operations.

Intensity of support: The classroom-based component involves 30 hours of life skills training, offered as three-hour classes, twice a week over a five-week period. One-to-one case management support is also available during this time.

Access to implementation support: OAs receive (initial and ongoing) training and an ‘Outreach Advisor Training Manual’ is also provided. Workshop instructors are provided with workshop curriculum and quarterly training.

Source: Greeson, Garcia, Kim, Thompson, & Courtney (2015), Courtney, Zinn, Zielewski, Bess, & Malm (2008)

2.0.8 Massachusetts Adolescent Outreach Program for Youths in Intensive Foster Care

2.0.8.1 Description

The ‘Massachusetts Adolescent Outreach Program for Youths in Intensive Foster Care’ (or ‘Outreach’ program) aims to support young people as they transition out of intensive foster care into independent living. Outreach workers provide one-to-one assistance, tailored to the young person’s self-identified needs and goals. program activities are geared towards providing a sense of support to the young person, through the development of a trusting relationship with their Outreach worker, while also enabling participants to develop skills and resources for independent living through hands-on assistance in practical tasks (e.g. in accessing available financial support, obtaining housing, applying for further education or employment, and facilitating referrals to appropriate services).

2.0.8.2 Intended outcomes

The primary goals of the Outreach program are to support young people leaving intensive foster care to develop the skills, connections and capital that they will need to live as an independent adult. While intended outcomes vary according to participant needs, a particular emphasis is placed on the acquisition of life skills, participation in further education and/or securing employment and the development of supportive relationships.

2.0.8.3 Eligibility criteria

To be enrolled in the Outreach program, young people need to:

  • be in intensive foster care under the guardianship of Massachusetts Department of Children and Families;
  • be aged 16 or older at referral to the program; and
  • have a goal of living independently.

2.0.8.4 Delivery

Length of support: The program duration is not fixed, however, on average young people received support for 22 months: 16 months of hands-on assistance, followed by six months of intermittent check-ins.

Mode of delivery: The program is delivered by Outreach workers, under supervision from Outreach supervisors. Outreach workers work to (a) develop and follow a plan with the young person through initial and ongoing assessment of their needs and goals, (b) have weekly meetings during which they provide hands-on, individualized support in achieving the young person’s goals (e.g. applying for higher education or employment), and (c) refer participants to other services as appropriate. Once a young person is assessed as having met the goals set out in their personal plan, weekly ‘assistance’ meetings are concluded and the young person is moved to ‘tracking’ status for approximately six months, during which time the Outreach worker maintains intermittent contact with the young person before discharging them from the program.

Intensity of support: Outreach workers typically meet with young people on a weekly basis; however, young people can request more or less frequent meetings depending on their needs.

Access to implementation support: Outreach workers receive formal pre-service training and informal training through shadowing colleagues ‘on the job’. Ongoing training is available, and Outreach supervisors provide weekly supervision.

Source: Greeson, Garcia, Kim, & Courtney (2015), Courtney, Zinn, Johnson, & Malm (2011)

2.0.9 New York City/New York State–Initiated Third Supportive Housing Program (NYNY III)

2.0.9.1 Description

The ‘New York City/New York State-Initiated Third Supportive Housing Program’ (NYNY III) was developed in 2007 to provide supportive housing for young people at risk of becoming homeless, including youth transitioning out of the foster care system. The program is based on a “housing first” approach, which posits that provision of housing to people with unstable living conditions will ultimately improve health outcomes, even without specific health interventions.

2.0.9.2 Intended outcomes

The primary intended outcome of the NYNY III program is that young people transitioning out of the foster care system to independent living avoid homelessness and secure stable housing. In addition, the program aims to reduce sexually transmitted infections, which are associated with unstable housing experiences, among this group.

2.0.9.3 Eligibility criteria

To be enrolled in the NYNY III program, young people need to:

  • Be in foster care in the New York State area; and
  • Meet one of the following criteria: be preparing to leave foster care within the following six months, have left foster care within the previous two years, or have been in foster care for at least one year following their 16th birthday.

2.0.9.4 Delivery

Length of support: No information available.

Mode of delivery: The NYNY III program has two main modes of delivery: (1) provision of affordable housing and (2) access to additional supportive services to help young people live independently. Services available through NYNY III include: case management support, employment training, education-related support, and support in accessing appropriate health (physical and mental health) services

Intensity of support: No information available.

Access to implementation support: No information available.

Source: Lim, Singh, & Gwynn (2017)

2.0.10 Premier’s Youth Initiative

2.0.10.1 Description

The Premier’s Youth Initiative (PYI) was developed by the Department of Communities and Justice in New South Wales, Australia. program participants are provided access to advice and services facilitated by a team of three workers: The Personal Advisor, who is the key point of contact for the young person, the Education and Employment Mentor and the Transition Support Worker. PYI seeks to build young peoples’ material resources, independent living skills, social connections and human capital.

2.0.10.2 Intended outcomes

The primary goal of PYI is to prevent youth homelessness. Secondary goals are improving the employment, education and relationship outcomes of young people.

2.0.10.3 Eligibility criteria

To be enrolled in PYI, young people need to: * Reside in catchments where services are provided (within the state of NSW); * Be aged between 16.75 (16 years and 9 months) and 17.5 (17 years and 6 months) at the commencement of services; * Meet one or more of the following criteria: leaving residential OOHC, leaving OOHC with placement instability, leaving a permanent OOHC placement, and leaving OOHC after being in care 12 months or longer; and * Be capable of living independently.

2.0.10.4 Delivery

Length of support: Service length is not time limited.

Mode of delivery: The PYI team (Personal Advisor, Education and Employment Mentor and Transition Support Worker) work to (a) support the implementation of a leaving care plan, and b) the development of prosocial networks; the team provides (c) education and employment mentoring and (d) transitional support, including housing. Services are provided primarily at the individual level; however, some providers might undertake group activities (e.g. cooking classes). Services providers are paid professionals without clinical qualifications.

Intensity of support: There is no guidance on the intensity of support beyond that it should be ‘directed by the individual’ engaging with the service.

Access to implementation support: program guidelines only.

Source: Taylor et al. (2020)

2.0.11 TAKE CHARGE

2.0.11.1 Description

The TAKE CHARGE program is a coaching and workshop-based intervention, designed to enhance self-determination and improve outcomes for vulnerable young people in the transition to adulthood. Though originally developed for all young people, the model was designed to be accessible for young people with disabilities and was adapted specifically for young people who are both in foster care and receiving special education support.

2.0.11.2 Intended outcomes

The intended outcomes of the TAKE CHARGE program are that participants enhance their ‘self-determination’ skills and are able to identify and work towards self-identified ‘transition’ goals.

2.0.11.3 Eligibility criteria

To be enrolled in the TAKE CHARGE RCT, young people need to:

  • reside in the program catchment area;
  • be receiving special education support;
  • be in foster care (for at least 90 days) under the guardianship of Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS); and
  • be aged 16.5 to 17.5 years.

2.0.11.4 Delivery

Length of support: The program lasts for approximately 12 months.

Mode of delivery: The program model comprises two elements: (1) weekly coaching and (2) group workshops. Weekly one-on-one coaching sessions aim to support young people to develop self-determination skills (e.g. goal setting, problem solving, partnership development and self-regulation); to identify their own ‘transition-related’ goals; and to work towards achieving their goals over the course of a year (through practical support and encouragement). Direct practical support (e.g. making phone calls to relevant services) is gradually faded out as the participant demonstrates increasing skill level and motivation. Participants receive a ‘Self-help guide’ which outlines the skill areas covered in their coaching sessions and is designed to guide them through the transition planning process. The timing of sessions is flexible to suit the needs of participants. A number of adaptations were made to TAKE CHARGE to suit the needs of young people in foster care – including flexibility in the sequence of coaching sessions and the revision of the guide to incorporate information relevant to foster youth and the transition to independence. Coaches also liaise closely with foster parents, through monthly updates, to engage them in the process. ‘Mentoring workshops’ are held on a quarterly basis and focused on topics such as education, employment and transitioning out of foster care. The workshops provide an opportunity for participants to meet with other young people participating in the program and ‘mentors’ – TAKE CHARGE graduates with lived experience of foster care, 3 to 4 years older, who are enrolled in higher education, employed or had experience in overcoming barriers during their own transition from foster care.

Intensity of support: Coaching is one-to-one and carried out weekly. Four ‘Mentoring Workshops’ are held, one per quarter, over the 12-month program. Coaches provide monthly updates to Foster Parents.

Access to implementation support: ‘Mentors’ received training prior to the workshops. No information was available on training or support to TAKE CHARGE Coaches.

Source: Powers et al. (2012)

2.0.12 True North

2.0.12.1 Description

True North is a multi-component intervention where participants are engaged in group workshops and individual sessions on relationship skills and financial stability, and also receive employment assistance and mentoring.

2.0.12.2 Intended outcomes

In the short to medium term the intervention seeks to improve relationships and job readiness for participants. Longer-term, it seeks to improve financial stability and overall well-being.

2.0.12.3 Eligibility criteria

To be enrolled in the True North, young people need to:

  • age 17 and currently in foster care;
  • young adults ages 17-23 currently in extended foster care;
  • young adults who were involved in foster care at some point in their lives; and
  • residing in Broward County at the time of enrollment.

2.0.12.4 Delivery

Length of support: The intervention lasts for approximately 12 months.

Mode of delivery: The model comprises three content modules that are delivered by trained staff: a) healthy relationships, b) economic stability and c) mentoring. Healthy relationships are supported through implementation of the ‘Love Notes Healthy Relationships Curriculum’, which is delivered as part of group workshops and individual sessions. Economic stability is covered through teaching financial literacy and job readiness in both group workshops and individual sessions. Job and internships opportunities are also available. Individual mentoring is provided using a strengths-based and motivational interviewing approach.

Intensity of support: Intensity depends on the module. For healthy relationships: 13 hours of group workshops and 7 hours of individual sessions are provided. For economic stability: 4 hours of group workshops and 7 hours of individual sessions are provided. If a participant has an internship, then they meet with there supervisor once a month and receive 1-4 hours of job coaching per month. For mentoring: participants receive 7 hours of individual sessions.

Access to implementation support: Level of support depended on the module. For healthy relationships: facilitators needed to have completed a bachelors degree and the Love Notes training from the intervention originator prior to delivering services. A day of refresher training was provided annually. For economic stability: financial coaches needed to have completed a bachelors degree prior to delivering services. Self-directed training on financial and vocational tools and resources was required on an ongoing basis. For mentoring: staff received strengths-based case management and motivation interviewing training prior to delivering services before providing services and on an annual basis.

Source: Leip (2020)

2.0.13 Youth Villages LifeSet (YVLifeSet)

2.0.13.1 Description

The Youth Villages LifeSet (YVLifeSet) program was originally developed in 1999 by ‘Youth Villages’, a non-profit organisation operating a variety of residential and community-based youth programs across the United States. The manualized program is intended to help young people who are leaving foster care or juvenile justice custody to successfully transition to independent living by providing weekly, individualized, and clinically focused case management, counselling and support. Support is tailored to each young person’s needs, however, issues commonly addressed include education, employment and finances, stable housing, life skills development, management of relationships, and mental health and substance use.

2.0.13.2 Intended outcomes

The primary goal of YVLifeSet is to support young people to make a successful transition to independent living from foster care or juvenile justice custody. Due to the individualized nature of the program, targeted outcomes are wide-ranging and tailored to the particular needs and goals of each young person. Particular emphasis is placed on maintenance of stable housing; avoidance of involvement with the criminal justice system and a reduction in risky behaviours; participation in education or vocational training; obtaining formal employment; and having improved mental health and access to social support.

2.0.13.3 Eligibility criteria

To be enrolled in YVLifeSet RCT, young people need to:

  • be in the custody of the child welfare system, either in foster care or in the juvenile justice system and approaching independence from state custody;
  • be contactable and interested in program services;
  • be aged 17 to 24;
  • not have a history of severe violence, mental health problems, drug use, and/or developmental delays; and
  • be assessed by program staff as capable of living independently.

2.0.13.4 Delivery

Length of support: The program lasts between nine and twelve months.

Mode of delivery: The program is delivered by ‘Transitional Living specialists’ (‘TL specialists’) with supervision from clinical supervisors, and clinical consultants. The program starts with an assessment and the development of a treatment plan based on the young person’s needs and goals. TL specialists meet with the participants on a weekly basis, in their home or in convenient community locations, and engage in activities related to their personal plan. One-to-one sessions are based on three methodologies: (a) the use of evidence-informed tools (including curricula on topics such as money management and behavioural treatment strategies for issues including substance abuse); (b) counselling (oriented towards supporting the young person achieving their stated goals); and (c) appropriate action-oriented activities (e.g. taking a young person to a bank to open an account). TL specialists may also refer young people to other relevant community-based services and encourage participants to attend group social and learning activities with other program participants. An ‘educational/vocational coordinator’ is available to provide additional support to young people who want to go to college, enrol in vocational training or find a job. All program participants are screened for trauma and, where appropriate, have access to (12-20 weeks’) therapy by trained staff. TL specialists are not typically clinically qualified but have (as a minimum) a bachelor’s degree in a relevant field.

Intensity of support: TL specialists typically have a caseload of eight young people. Participants meet for one-hour, one-to-one meetings on a weekly basis. Young people may also attend monthly group sessions with other program participants.

Access to implementation support: TL specialists are provided with a program treatment manual which outlines the methodologies that they are expected to employ when working with young people. Training is provided in evidence-based clinical practices (e.g. motivational interviewing). Clinical supervisors provide weekly group supervision to four or five TL specialists and, in turn, clinical supervisors receive supervision from clinical consultants.

Source: Courtney, Valentine, & Skemer (2019), Valentine, Skemer, & Courtney (2015), Skemer & Valentine (2016), Manno, Jacobs, Alson, & Skemer (2014)

3 Search Strategy and Results

This section details the results of our search strategy of databases.

3.1 Overview of electronic databases

Table 3.1: Details of electronic database searches
Database Platform Start of search coverage End of search coverage Search strategy
Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials Ovid 1991 2022-08-04 See Table 3.2
CINAHL EBSCO 1937 2022-08-03 See Table 3.3
ERIC Proquest 1966 2022-08-02 See Table 3.4
PsycINFO Ovid 1806 2022-08-03 See Table 3.5
MEDLINE Ovid 1946 2022-08-03 See Table 3.6
EMBASE Ovid 1974 2022-08-01 See Table 3.7
Sociological Abstracts Proquest 1952 2022-08-02 See Table ??
Social Services Abstracts Proquest 1980 2022-08-02 See Table 3.9
SocIndex EBSCO 1895 2022-08-04 See Table 3.10
NHS Economic Evaluation Database Ovid 1995 2022-08-04 See Table 3.11
Health Technology Assessment Ovid 2001 2022-08-04 See Table 3.12

3.2 Results of electronic database searches

3.2.1 Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials via Ovid

Table 3.2: Search strategy and results for Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials via Ovid
No.  Search Terms Result
1 child welfare/ or foster home care/ 479
2 (foster adj2 (youth or child* or care)).ti. 224
3 (foster adj2 (youth or child* or care)).ab. 351
4 Independent Living/ 686
5 independent living.ti. 49
6 independent living.ab. 457
7 Self Care/ 4339
8 (extend* adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 264
9 (leav* adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 59
10 (transit* adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 1076
11 (ag* out adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 5
12 (emancipat* adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 1
13 1 or 2 or 3 806
14 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 6808
15 13 and 14 19
16 (RCT or Trial* or randomi* or random* allocat* or random* assign* or (control* adj1 Intervention) or (treatment adj1 control) or evaluat study 534693 or control group* or control condition* or comparison group* or comparison condition* or time series or (before adj1 after) or pre post or longitudinal or repeated measures or effect size* or comparative effective* or experiment* or pre-experiment* or difference in difference* or instrumental variable* or Propensity score or (control* adj1 treat) or wait list or quasi ex* or quasiexperiment* or matched control or matched comparison).ti. 534693
17 (RCT or Trial* or randomi* or random* allocat* or random* assign* or (control* adj1 Intervention) or (treatment adj1 control) or evaluat study 534693 or control group* or control condition* or comparison group* or comparison condition* or time series or (before adj1 after) or pre post or longitudinal or repeated measures or effect size* or comparative effective* or experiment* or pre-experiment* or difference in difference* or instrumental variable* or Propensity score or (control* adj1 treat) or wait list or quasi ex* or quasiexperiment* or matched control or matched comparison).ab. 1165124
18 (Clinical Trial or Empirical Study or Experimental Replication or Followup Study or Longitudinal Study or Prospective Study or Retrospective 636912 Study or Quantitative Study or Treatment Outcome or Field Study or Mathematical Modeling).mp. 636912
19 16 or 17 or 18 1417296
20 15 and 19 13

3.2.2 CINAHL via EBSCO

Table 3.3: Search strategy and results for CINAHL via EBSCO
No.  Search Terms Result
S1 (MM Foster Home Care) OR (MH Foster Parents) OR (MH Child, Foster) 5425
S2 (MH “Child Welfare+”) 40648
S3 TI foster n2 child* OR TI foster n2 youth OR TI foster n2 parent* OR TI foster n2 care* OR TI foster n2 home 2877
S4 AB foster n2 child* OR AB foster n2 youth OR AB foster n2 parent* OR AB foster n2 care* OR AB foster n2 home 3918
S5 (TI (extend* n2 care or foster)) OR (AB (extend n2 care or foster*)) 28212
S6 (TI (leav* n2 care or foster)) OR (AB (leav n2 care or foster*)) 27294
S7 (TI (transit* n2 care or foster)) OR (AB (transit n2 care or foster*)) 33282
S8 (TI (ag* out n2 care or foster)) OR (AB (ag out n2 care or foster*)) 26574
S9 S1 OR S2 OR S3 OR S4 45385
S10 S5 OR S6 OR S7 OR S8 35980
S11 S9 AND S10 5797
S12 MH “Randomized Controlled Trials” OR MH “Clinical Trials” 302687
S13 MH “Evaluation” OR “MH Program Evaluation” 2282
S14 TI “Randomized Controlled Trials” OR TI “Clinical Trials” 20730
S15 MH “Quasi-Experimental Studies+” 18097
S16 (MH “Quasi-Experimental Studies”) OR (MH “Nonequivalent Control Group”) OR (MH “Time Series”) OR (MH “Repeated Measures”) OR (MH “Retrospective Design”) OR (MH “Time and Motion Studies”) 392811
S17 (quasi-experiment* OR quasiexperiment* OR “propensityscore” OR “controlgroup” OR “control condition” OR “treatment group” OR “comparison group” OR “wait-list” OR “waiting list” OR “intervention group” OR “experimental group” OR “matched control” OR “matched groups” OR “matched comparison” OR “experimental trial” OR “experimental design” OR “experimental method” OR “experimental stud” OR “experimental evaluation” OR “experimental test” OR “experimental assessment” OR “comparison sample” OR “propensity matched” OR “control sample” OR “control subject” OR “intervention sample” OR OR “no treatment group” OR “nontreatment control” OR “pseudo experimental” OR “pseudo randomi?ed” OR “quasi-RCT” OR “quasi-randomi?ed” OR “compared with control” OR “compared to control” OR ”compared to a control” OR “non-randomi?ed controlled stud” OR “nonrandom assign*”) 295386
S18 S12 OR S13 OR S14 OR S15 OR S16 OR S17 883730
S19 S11 AND S18 569

3.2.3 ERIC via Proquest

Table 3.4: Search strategy and results for ERIC via Proquest
No.  Search Terms Result
S1 MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Child Safety”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Child Welfare”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Foster Care”) 8962
S2 ti(foster N/2 child) OR ti(foster N/2 parent) OR ti(foster N/2 care) OR ti(foster N/2 home)) OR (ab(foster N/2 child) OR ab(foster N/2 parent) OR ab(foster N/2 care*) OR ab(foster N/2 home) 1098
S3 MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Independent living”) OR MAIN SUBJECT.EXACT(“Daily living”) OR ((extend* NEAR/2 (care OR foster)) OR (leav NEAR/2 (care OR foster)) OR (transit NEAR/2 (care OR foster)) OR (ag out NEAR/2 (care OR foster*))) OR su(“Transitional programs”) 8894
S4 S1 OR S2 9191
S5 S3 AND S4 354
S6 RCT OR Trial* OR randomi* OR ‘random* allocat’ OR ‘random assign’ OR (control n/1 intervention) OR (treatment n/1 control) OR ‘evaluat study’ OR ‘control group’ OR ‘control condition’ OR ‘comparison group’ OR ‘comparison condition’ OR ‘time series’ OR ‘before after’) OR (‘pre post’ OR longitudinal OR ‘repeated measures’ OR ‘effect size’ OR ‘comparative effective’ OR experiment* OR pre-experiment* OR ‘difference?in?difference’ OR ‘instrumental variable’ OR ‘propensity score’ OR (control n/1 treat) OR ‘wait list’ OR ‘quasi ex’ or quasiexperiment OR ‘matched control’ OR ‘matched comparison’ 256539
S7 (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Control Groups’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Matched Groups’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Quasiexperimental Design’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Randomized Controlled Trials’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Program Evaluation’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Outcomes of Treatment’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Medical Care Evaluation’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Replication (Evaluation)’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Evaluation Research’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Scientific Research’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Therapy’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Cost Effectiveness’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Medical Evaluation’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Program Effectiveness’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Outcome Measures’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Experimental Groups’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Experimental Programs’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Data Analysis’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Comparative Analysis’) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(‘Intervention’)) 279028
S8 S6 OR S7 443083
S9 S5 AND S8 132

3.2.4 PsycINFO via Ovid

Table 3.5: Search strategy and results for PsycINFO via Ovid
No.  Search Terms Result
1 foster care/ or child welfare/ or foster children/ or foster parents/ or protective services/ 17840
2 (foster adj2 (youth or child* or care)).ti. 3656
3 (foster adj2 (youth or child* or care)).ab. 7503
4 independent living programs/ 410
5 independent living.ti. 557
6 independent living.ab. 2922
7 self-care skills/ 4901
8 self-determination/ 5780
9 (extend* adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 757
10 (leav* adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 804
11 (transit* adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 2095
12 (ag* out adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 276
13 (emancipat* adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 137
14 1 or 2 or 3 19936
15 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 16709
16 14 and 15 1035
17 (Clinical Trial or Empirical Study or Experimental Replication or Followup Study or Longitudinal Study or Prospective Study or Retrospective Study or Quantitative Study or Treatment Outcome or Field Study or Mathematical Modeling).md. 2784795
18 (RCT or Trial* or randomi* or random* allocat* or random* assign* or (control* adj1 Intervention) or (treatment adj1 control) or evaluat study or control group* or control condition* or comparison group* or comparison condition* or time series or (before adj1 after) or pre post or longitudinal or repeated measures or effect size* or comparative effective* or experiment* or pre-experiment* or difference in difference* or instrumental variable* or propensity score or (control* adj1 treat) or wait list or quasi ex* or quasiexperiment* or matched control or matched comparison).ti. 134499
19 (RCT or Trial* or randomi* or random* allocat* or random* assign* or (control* adj1 Intervention) or (treatment adj1 control) or evaluat study or control group* or control condition* or comparison group* or comparison condition* or time series or (before adj1 after) or pre post or longitudinal or repeated measures or effect size* or comparative effective* or experiment* or pre-experiment* or difference in difference* or instrumental variable* or propensity score or (control* adj1 treat) or wait list or quasi ex* or quasiexperiment* or matched control or matched comparison).ab. 869427
20 17 or 18 or 19 3064221
21 16 and 20 742

3.2.5 MEDLINE via Ovid

Table 3.6: Search strategy and results for MEDLINE via Ovid
No.  Search Terms Result
1 exp Foster Home Care/ or exp Child Welfare/ or exp Child, Foster/ or foster care.mp. 35109
2 child protective services.mp. or Child protective services/ 1488
3 (foster adj2 (youth or child* or care)).ti. 1281
4 (foster adj2 (youth or child* or care)).ab. 2445
5 exp Independent living/ or exp self care/ or exp self-neglect/ or exp social participation/ 73410
6 independent living.ti. 468
7 independent living.ab. 2478
8 (extend* adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 2021
9 (leav* adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 539
10 (transit* adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 6558
11 (ag* out adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 52
12 (emancipat* adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 40
13 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 36387
14 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 84368
15 13 and 14 403
16 (RCT or Trial* or randomi* or random* allocat* or random* assign* or (control* adj1 Intervention) or (treatment adj1 control) or evaluat study or control group* or control condition* or comparison group* or comparison condition* or time series or (before adj1 after) or pre post or longitudinal or repeated measures or effect size* or comparative effective* or experiment* or pre-experiment* or difference in difference* or instrumental variable* or Propensity score or (control* adj1 treat) or wait list or quasi ex* or quasiexperiment* or matched control or matched comparison).ti. 742535
17 (RCT or Trial* or randomi* or random* allocat* or random* assign* or (control* adj1 Intervention) or (treatment adj1 control) or evaluat study or control group* or control condition* or comparison group* or comparison condition* or time series or (before adj1 after) or pre post or longitudinal or repeated measures or effect size* or comparative effective* or experiment* or pre-experiment* or difference in difference* or instrumental variable* or Propensity score or (control* adj1 treat) or wait list or quasi ex* or quasiexperiment* or matched control or matched comparison).ti. 3482690
18 clinical trial/ or observational study/ or comparative study/ or evaluation study/ 2625742
19 case-control studies/ or cohort studies/ or follow-up studies/ or longitudinal studies/ or prospective studies/ or retrospective studies/ or controlled before-after studies/ or cross- sectional studies/ or historically controlled study/ or interrupted time series analysis/ or feasibility studies/ 3020526
20 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 7735529
21 15 and 20 126

3.2.6 EMBASE via Ovid

Table 3.7: Search strategy and results for EMBASE via Ovid
No.  Search Terms Result
1 foster care/ or foster child/ 5513
2 child welfare/ or child protection/ 19738
3 (foster adj2 (youth or child* or care)).ti. 1591
4 (foster adj2 (youth or child* or care)).ab. 3392
5 independent living/ or independent living program.mp. 6559
6 independent living.ti. 658
7 independent living.ab. 3994
8 (extend* adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 3157
9 (leav* adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 810
10 (transit* adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 13486
11 (ag* out adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 61
12 (emancipat* adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 50
13 self care/ or self care skills.mp. 69997
14 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 25075
15 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 95347
16 14 and 15 382
17 (RCT or Trial* or randomi* or random* allocat* or random* assign* or (control* adj1 Intervention) or (treatment adj1 control) or evaluat study or control group* or control condition* or comparison group* or comparison condition* or time series or (before adj1 after) or pre post or longitudinal or repeated measures or effect size* or comparative effective* or experiment* or pre-experiment* or difference in difference* or instrumental variable* or propensity score or (control* adj1 treat) or wait list or quasi ex* or quasiexperiment* or matched control or matched comparison).ti. 1099373
18 (RCT or Trial* or randomi* or random* allocat* or random* assign* or (control* adj1 Intervention) or (treatment adj1 control) or evaluat study or control group* or control condition* or comparison group* or comparison condition* or time series or (before adj1 after) or pre post or longitudinal or repeated measures or effect size* or comparative effective* or experiment* or pre-experiment* or difference in difference* or instrumental variable* or propensity score or (control* adj1 treat) or wait list or quasi ex* or quasiexperiment* or matched control or matched comparison).ab. 5541851
19 clinical study/ or case control study/ or intervention study/ or longitudinal study/ or major clinical study/ or prospective study/ or retrospective study/ or comparative study/ or controlled study/ or experimental study/ or feasibility study/ or observational study/ or quasi experimental study/ or replication study/ or cross-sectional study/ or controlled clinical trial/ or pretest posttest control group design/ or static group comparison/ or cross-sectional study/ or outcome assessment/ 13303097
20 17 or 18 or 19 16229924
21 16 and 20 163

3.2.7 Sociological Abstracts via Proquest

Table 3.8: Search strategy and results for Sociological Abstracts via Proquest
No.  Search Terms Result
S1 SU.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Foster Children”) OR SU.EXACT(“Child Welfare Services”) OR SU.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Foster Care”) OR SU.EXACT(“Surrogate Parents”) 3801
S2 (ti(foster N/2 child) OR ti(foster N/2 parent) OR ti(foster N/2 care) OR ti(foster N/2 home)) OR (ab(foster N/2 child) OR ab(foster N/2 parent) OR ab(foster N/2 care) OR ab(foster N/2 home)) 2225
S3 S1 OR S2 4572
S4 MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Self Care”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Deinstitutionalization”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Independent Living”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Independence”) 3836
S5 (extend* NEAR/2 (care or foster*)) 1628
S6 (leav* NEAR/2 (care OR foster*)) 2169
S7 (transit* NEAR/2 (care OR foster*)) 1686
S8 (ag* out NEAR/2 (care OR foster*)) 3239
S9 S4 OR S5 OR S6 OR S7 OR S8 10088
S10 S3 AND S9 510
S11 MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Empirical Methods”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Treatment”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Quantitative Methods”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Evaluation”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Statistical Significance”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Treatment Programs”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Placebo Effect”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Research Methodology”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Treatment Outcomes”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Effectiveness”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT (“RANDOMNESS”) 28149
S12 (quasi-experimental OR quasi-experiment or quasiexperiment OR “propensity score” OR “control group” OR “control condition” OR “treatment group” OR ”comparison group” OR “wait-list” OR ”waiting list” OR “intervention group” OR ”experimental group” OR “matched control” OR “matched group” OR ”matched comparison” OR ”experimental trial” OR ”experimental design” OR ”experimental method” OR “experimental stud” OR ”experimental evaluation” OR ”experimental test” OR “experimental assessment” OR “comparison sample” OR “propensity matched” OR “control sample” OR “control subject” OR “intervention sample” OR “no treatment group” OR “nontreatment control” OR “pseudo experimental” OR “pseudo randomi?ed” OR “quasi-RCT” OR “quasi-randomi?ed” OR “compared with control” OR “compared to control” OR ” compared to a control” OR “non-randomi?ed controlled stud*” OR “nonrandomly assigned”) 36813
S13 ti((RCT OR Trial* OR randomi* OR “random* allocat” OR “random assign” OR (control n/1 intervention) OR (treatment n/1 control) OR “evaluat study” OR “control group” OR “control condition” OR “comparison group” OR “comparison condition” OR “time series” OR “before after”) OR (“pre post” OR longitudinal OR “repeated measures” OR “effect size” OR “comparative effective” OR experiment* OR pre-experiment* OR “difference in difference” OR “instrumental variable” OR “propensity score” OR (control* n/1 treat*) OR “wait* list” OR “quasi ex” OR quasiexperiment OR “matched control” OR “matched comparison”)) 19271
S14 ab((RCT OR Trial* OR randomi* OR “random* allocat” OR “random assign” OR (control n/1 intervention) OR (treatment n/1 control) OR “evaluat study” OR “control group” OR “control condition” OR “comparison group” OR “comparison condition” OR “time series” OR “before after”) OR (“pre post” OR longitudinal OR “repeated measures” OR “effect size” OR “comparative effective” OR experiment* OR pre-experiment* OR “difference in difference” OR “instrumental variable” OR “propensity score” OR (control* n/1 treat*) OR “wait* list” OR “quasi ex” OR quasiexperiment OR “matched control” OR “matched comparison”)) 97479
S15 S11 OR S12 OR S13 OR S14 147407
S16 S10 AND S15 143

3.2.8 Social Services Abstracts via Proquest

Table 3.9: Search strategy and results for Social Services Abstracts via Proquest
No.  Search Terms Result
S1 SU.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Foster Children”) OR SU.EXACT(“Child Welfare Services”) OR SU.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Foster Care”) OR SU.EXACT(“Surrogate Parents”) 12984
S2 (ti(foster N/2 child) OR ti(foster N/2 parent) OR ti(foster N/2 care) OR ti(foster N/2 home)) OR (ab(foster N/2 child) OR ab(foster N/2 parent) OR ab(foster N/2 care) OR ab(foster N/2 home)) 6645
S3 S1 OR S2 14196
S4 MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Self Care”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Deinstitutionalization”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Independent Living”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Independence”) 1801
S5 (extend* NEAR/2 (care or foster*)) 1027
S6 (leav* NEAR/2 (care OR foster*)) 1645
S7 (transit* NEAR/2 (care OR foster*)) 1694
S8 (ag* out NEAR/2 (care OR foster*)) 3087
S9 S4 OR S5 OR S6 OR S7 OR S8 7652
S10 S3 AND S9 1627
S11 MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Empirical Methods”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Treatment”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Quantitative Methods”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Evaluation”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Statistical Significance”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Treatment Programs”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Placebo Effect”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Research Methodology”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Treatment Outcomes”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Effectiveness”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT (“RANDOMNESS”) 17837
S12 (quasi-experimental* OR quasi-experiment OR quasiexperiment OR “propensity score” OR “control group” OR “control condition” OR “treatment group” OR “comparison group” OR “wait-list” OR ”waiting list” OR “intervention group” OR ”experimental group” OR “matched control” OR ”matched groups” OR ”matched comparison” OR “experimental trial” OR ”experimental design” OR ”experimental method” OR “experimental stud” OR “experimental evaluation” OR “experimental test” OR “experimental assessment” OR “comparison sample” OR “propensity matched” OR “control sample” OR “control subject” OR “intervention sample” OR “no treatment group” OR “nontreatment control” OR “pseudo experimental” OR “pseudo randomi?ed” OR quasi-RCT OR quasi-randomi?ed OR “compared with control” OR “compared to control” OR “compared to a control” OR “non-randomi?ed controlled stud*” OR “nonrandomly assigned”) 17706
S13 ti((RCT OR Trial* OR randomi* OR “random* allocat” OR “random assign” OR (control n/1 Intervention) OR (treatment n/1 control) OR “evaluat study” OR “control group” OR “control condition” OR “comparison group” OR “comparison condition” OR “time series” OR “before after”) OR (“pre post” OR longitudinal OR “repeated measures” OR “effect size” OR comparative effective OR experiment* OR pre-experiment* OR “difference in difference” OR “instrumental variable” OR “propensity score” OR (control* n/1 treat*) OR “wait* list” OR “quasi ex” or quasiexperiment OR “matched control” OR “matched comparison”)) 7301
S14 ab((RCT OR Trial* OR randomi* OR “random* allocat” OR “random assign” OR (control n/1 Intervention) OR (treatment n/1 control) OR “evaluat study” OR “control group” OR “control condition” OR “comparison group” OR “comparison condition” OR “time series” OR “before after”) OR (“pre post” OR longitudinal OR repeated measures OR effect size* OR comparative effective* OR experiment* OR pre-experiment* OR “difference in difference” OR “instrumental variable” OR “propensity score” OR (control* n/1 treat*) OR “wait* list” OR “quasi ex” or quasiexperiment OR “matched control” OR “matched comparison”)) 32922
S15 S11 OR S12 OR S13 OR S14 57147
S16 S10 AND S15 435

3.2.9 SocIndex via EBSCO

Table 3.10: Search strategy and results for SocIndex via EBSCO
No.  Search Terms Result
S1 ((DE “FOSTER home care”) OR (DE “FOSTER mothers”) OR (DE “FOSTER parents”) OR (DE “FOSTER children”) OR (DE “FOSTER grandparents”) OR (DE “CHILD protection services”)) 7986
S2 TI foster n2 child* OR TI foster n2 youth OR TI foster n2 parent* OR TI foster n2 care* OR TI foster n2 home OR TI “foster famil” OR TI “fostering orphan” OR TI “looked after children” OR TI “out of home care” OR TI “out of home placement” OR TI “substitute care” OR TI “looked after youth*” 3868
S3 AB foster n2 child* OR AB foster n2 youth OR AB foster n2 parent* OR AB foster n2 care* OR AB foster n2 home OR AB “foster famil” OR AB “fostering orphan” OR AB “looked after children” OR AB “out of home care” OR AB “out of home placement” OR AB “substitute care” OR AB “looked after youth*” 8505
S4 (extend* n2 (care or foster*)) 1463
S5 (leav* n2 (care or foster*)) 1378
S6 (transit* n2 (care or foster*)) 997
S7 (ag* out n2 (care or foster*)) 239
S8 DE “LIFE skills” 1755
S9 S1 OR S2 OR S3 12686
S10 S4 OR S5 OR S6 OR S7 OR S8 5568
S11 S9 AND S10 696
S12 DE “CLINICAL trials” OR DE “RANDOMIZED controlled trials” OR DE “OUTCOME assessment (Social services)” OR DE “SOCIAL services – Evaluation” OR DE “FOLLOW- up studies (Medicine)” OR DE “PLACEBOS (Medicine)” OR DE “BLIND experiment” OR placebo* OR random* OR “comparative stud” OR clinical NEAR/3 trial OR research NEAR/3 design OR evaluat* NEAR/3 stud* OR prospectiv* NEAR/3 stud* OR (singl* OR doubl* OR trebl* OR tripl) NEAR/3 (blind OR mask*) 74743
S13 TI cohort* OR AB cohort* OR TI case-control* OR AB case-control* OR TI cross-section* OR AB cross-section* OR TI comparative* OR AB comparative* OR TI “validation stud” OR AB “validation stud” OR TI “evaluation stud” OR AB “evaluation stud” OR TI random* OR TI longitudinal* OR AB longitudinal* OR TI follow-up OR AB follow-up OR TI prospective OR AB prospective OR TI retrospective OR AB retrospective OR TI experimental OR AB experimental OR AB random* 189422
S14 (quasi-experimental OR quasi-experiment OR quasiexperiment* OR “propensity score” OR “control group” OR “control condition” OR “treatment group” OR”wait-list” OR “waiting list“” OR “intervention group” OR “experimental group” OR “matched control” OR “matched groups” OR “matched comparison” OR “experimental trial” OR “experimental design” OR “experimental method” OR “experimental stud” OR “experimental evaluation” OR “experimental test” OR “experimental assessment” OR “comparison sample” OR “propensity matched” OR “control sample” OR “control subject” OR “intervention sample” OR “no treatment group” OR” nontreatment control” OR “pseudo experimental” OR “pseudo randomi?ed” OR “quasi-RCT” OR “quasi-randomi?ed” OR “compared with control” OR “compared to control” OR “compared to a control” OR “non-randomized controlled stud” OR “nonrandomly assigned”) 16696
S15 S12 OR S13 OR S14 219049
S16 S11 AND S15 116

3.2.10 NHS Economic Evaluation Database via Ovid

Table 3.11: Search strategy and results for NHS Economic Evaluation Database via Ovid
No.  Search Terms Result
1 Child welfare/ 19
2 (foster adj2 (youth or child* or care)).mp. 5
3 independent living.ti. 3
4 Self Care/ 128
5 (extend* adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 11
6 (leav* adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 3
7 (transit* adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 18
8 (ag* out adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 0
9 (empancipat* adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 0
10 1 or 2 23
11 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 163
12 10 and 11 3

3.2.11 Health Technology Assessment via Ovid

Table 3.12: Search strategy and results for Health Technology Assessment via Ovid
No.  Search Terms Result
1 Foster Home Care/ 2
2 Child Welfare/ 8
3 (foster adj2 (youth or child or care)).mp. 3
4 independent living.mp. 4
5 (extend* adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 1
6 (leav* adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 1
7 (transit* adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 6
8 (ag* out adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 0
9 (empancipat* adj2 (care or foster* or out of home care or OOHC or looked after)).mp. 0
10 self care/ 60
11 1 or 2 or 3 11
12 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 72
13 11 and 12 0

3.3 Overview of Grey Literature sources

Table 3.13: Details of grey literature searches
Source Date searched Search Strategy
Australian Institute of Family Studies 2022-10-06 Search string: “foster c” or ”out of home” and ”transition” or “leav*” and “evaluation”
California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare 2022-09-29 Reviewed all entries included in the. topic area: “Youth Transitioning into Adulthood Programs”
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago 2022-10-06 Reviewed all publications under: “Youth Homelessness”, “Foster Care”, “Transition Age Youth” & “Youth Homelessness Capacity Building”
International Research Network on Transitions to Adulthood from Care 2022-08-11 Reviewed all publications listed in shared “recent publications” GoogleSheet
Social Care Online 2022-10-13 Search string: 1. “foster care” OR “child abuse” OR “child welfare” OR “child maltreatment”; 2. independent OR independence OR transition OR extend OR “self determination” OR “living”; 3. 1 & 2; 4. RCT or Trial* or randomi* or random* allocat* or “random* assign” or ”control” or ”treatment” or “evaluat” or ”control group” or “control condition” or ”comparison group” or “comparison condition” or ”time series” or ”before after” or ”pre post” or longitudinal or ”repeated measures” or ”effect size” or “comparative effective” or experiment or”pre-experiment” or “difference in difference” or ”instrumental variable” or “propensity score” or control or “wait* list” or “quasi ex” or quasiexperiment or”matched control” or “matched comparison”; 5. 3 & 4
Analysis and Policy Observatory 2022-10-06 Search string: “foster care”
Washington State for Public Policy 2022-08-11 Reviewed all ’Publications”
Chidren’s Social Care Innovation Programme 2022-10-07 Reviewed all programmes funded under the Children’s Social Care Innovation Programme

3.4 Results of Grey Literature searches

Table 3.14: Results of grey literature searches
Source Titles reviewed Duplicates excluded Full texts reviewed Full Texts Excluded Literature included
Australian Institute of Family Studies 460 10 26 25 1
California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare 21 6 14 14 0
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago 83 1 28 26 2
International Research Network on Transitions to Adulthood from Care 252 NA 0 0 0
Social Care Online 45 20 0 0 0
Analysis and Policy Observatory 242 0 0 0 0
Washington State for Public Policy 596 0 14 13 1
Chidren’s Social Care Innovation Programme 112 0 12 12 0
Total 1811 37 94 90 4

4 Publication Bias Assessment Results

4.1 Housing and homelessness outcomes

Figure 4.1: Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on experiencing homelessness 24 months from baseline

Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on experiencing homelessness 24 months from baseline

Figure 4.2: Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on number of residential moves 24 months from baseline

Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on number of residential moves 24 months from baseline

4.2 Health and wellbeing outcomes

Figure 4.3: Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of coaching and peer support programs on quality of life 16-24 months from baseline

Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of coaching and peer support programs on quality of life 16-24 months from baseline

4.3 Education outcomes

Figure 4.4: Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on completion of high school or equivalent 24 months from baseline

Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on completion of high school or equivalent 24 months from baseline

Figure 4.5: Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on commencement of university 24 months from baseline

Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on commencement of university 24 months from baseline

Figure 4.6: Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of coaching and peer support programs on high school or equivalent completion 16-24 months from baseline

Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of coaching and peer support programs on high school or equivalent completion 16-24 months from baseline

Figure 4.7: Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of coaching and peer support programs on commencement of post-secondary education 16-24 months from baseline

Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of coaching and peer support programs on commencement of post-secondary education 16-24 months from baseline

4.4 Economic and employment outcomes

Figure 4.8: Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on earnings (in last 12 months) 24 months from baseline

Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on earnings (in last 12 months) 24 months from baseline

Figure 4.9: Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on current employment 24 months from baseline

Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on current employment 24 months from baseline

Figure 4.10: Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on receipt of any financial assistance 24 months from baseline

Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on receipt of any financial assistance 24 months from baseline

Figure 4.11: Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on net worth 24 months from baseline

Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on net worth 24 months from baseline

Figure 4.12: Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of coaching and peer support programs on current employment 16-24 months from baseline

Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of coaching and peer support programs on current employment 16-24 months from baseline

4.5 Criminal and delinquent behaviour outcomes

Figure 4.13: Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on delinquent behaviours 24 months from baseline

Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on delinquent behaviours 24 months from baseline

4.6 Risky behaviour outcomes

Figure 4.14: Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on becoming pregnant (in last 12 months) 24 months from baseline

Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on becoming pregnant (in last 12 months) 24 months from baseline

4.7 Life skills outcomes

Figure 4.15: Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on overall preparedness 24 months from baseline

Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on overall preparedness 24 months from baseline

Figure 4.16: Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on job-related preparedness 24 months from baseline

Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on job-related preparedness 24 months from baseline

Figure 4.17: Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on having any financial accounts 24 months from baseline

Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on having any financial accounts 24 months from baseline

Figure 4.18: Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on having a social security certificate 24 months from baseline

Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on having a social security certificate 24 months from baseline

Figure 4.19: Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on having a birth certificate 24 months from baseline

Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on having a birth certificate 24 months from baseline

Figure 4.20: Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on having a driver’s licence 24 months from baseline

Funnel plot for meta analysis of effect of independent living programs on having a driver's licence 24 months from baseline

5 GRADE Assessments

5.1 Housing and homelessness

Table 5.1: Summary GRADE quality assessment for housing and homelessness outcomes — Independent Living Programmes
Outcomes Estimated risk in comparison group Estimated risk in intervention group Relative effect (95% CI) Number of participants (studies), follow up Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) Comments
Experienced homelessness 24 months from baseline The number of young people who became homeless was on average -0.20 SDs 95% CI: [-0.46, 0.05] lower in the intervention group relative to the comparison group 819 (3), 24 months from baseline ⊕  Very low1 Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks assist in interpreting the magnitude of these results: small (SD = 0.2), medium (SD = 0.5), and large (SD = 0.8)
Number of residential moves 24 months from baseline The number of residential moves was on average -0.02 SDs 95%CI: [-0.16, 0.11] lower in the intervention group relative to the comparison group 819 (3), 24 months from baseline ⊕  Very low2 Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks assist in interpreting the magnitude of these results: small (SD = 0.2), medium (SD = 0.5), and large (SD = 0.8)
1 Downgraded two levels for risk of bias and one level for imprecision
2 Downgraded two levels for risk of bias and one level for imprecision
Table 5.2: Detailed GRADE quality assessment for housing and homelessness outcomes — Independent Living Programmes
Evidence can be downgraded
Evidence can be upgraded
Outcome Risk of bias Imprecision Inconsistency Indirectness Publication bias Large magnitude of effect Dose- response gradient Effect of plausible residual confounding
Experienced homelessness 24 months from baseline The proportion of information from studies at high risk of bias (n=2) out of the total (n=3) studies included in the meta-analysis is sufficient to affect the interpretation of results and weaken confidence in the results, downgrade 2 levels Estimate comes from a small number of included studies (n=3) with wide confidence intervals that span the line of no effect, downgrade 1 level No evidence of inconsistency, no change to rating No evidence of indirectness, no change to rating No evidence of publication bias observed, no change to rating No large magnitude or effect observed, no change to rating No dose response gradient observed, no change to rating Not applicable for RCT, no change to rating
Number of residential moves 24 months from baseline The proportion of information from studies at high risk of bias (n=2) out of the total (n=3) studies included in the meta-analysis is sufficient to affect the interpretation of results and weaken confidence in the results, downgrade 2 levels Estimate comes from a small number of included studies (n=2) with wide confidence intervals that span the line of no effect, downgrade 1 level No evidence of inconsistency, no change to rating No evidence of indirectness, no change to rating No evidence of publication bias observed, no change to rating No large magnitude or effect observed, no change to rating No dose response gradient observed, no change to rating Not applicable for RCT, no change to rating

5.2 Health and wellbeing

Table 5.3: Summary GRADE quality assessment for health and wellbeing outcomes — Coaching and peer support programs
Outcomes Estimated risk in comparison group Estimated risk in intervention group Relative effect (95% CI) Number of participants (studies), follow up Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) Comments
Quality of life 16-14 months from baseline The quality of life of young people who participated in the intervention was on average 0.76 SDs 95% CI: [0.41, 1.11] higher in the intervention group relative to the comparison group 136 (2), 16-24 months from baseline ⊕  Very low1 Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks assist in interpreting the magnitude of these results: small (SD = 0.2), medium (SD = 0.5), and large (SD = 0.8)
1 Downgraded two levels for risk of bias and one level for imprecision
2 Downgraded two levels for risk of bias and one level for imprecision
Table 5.4: Detailed GRADE quality assessment for health and wellbeing outcomes — Coaching and peer support programs
Evidence can be downgraded
Evidence can be upgraded
Outcome Risk of bias Imprecision Inconsistency Indirectness Publication bias Large magnitude of effect Dose- response gradient Effect of plausible residual confounding
Quality of life 16-14 months from baseline The proportion of information from studies with some concerns (n=2) included in the meta-analysis is sufficient to affect the interpretation of results and weaken confidence in the results, downgrade 1 level Estimate comes from a small number of included studies (n=2), with small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals that span the line of no effect, downgrade 2 levels No evidence of inconsistency, no change to rating No evidence of indirectness, no change to rating No evidence of publication bias observed, no change to rating No large magnitude or effect observed, no change to rating No dose response gradient observed, no change to rating Not applicable for RCT, no change to rating

5.3 Education

Table 5.5: Summary GRADE quality assessment for education outcomes — Independent Living Programmes
Outcomes Estimated risk in comparison group Estimated risk in intervention group Relative effect (95% CI) Number of participants (studies), follow up Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) Comments
Completed high school or equivalent qualification 24 months from baseline The proportion of young people who graduated from high school was on average 0.03 SDs 95% CI: [-0.13, 0.18] higher in the intervention group relative to the comparison group 819 (3), 24 months from baseline ⊕  Very low1 Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks assist in interpreting the magnitude of these results: small (SD = 0.2), medium (SD = 0.5), and large (SD = 0.8)
Commenced university 24 months from baseline The proportion of young people who attended college was on average 0.13 SDs 95%CI: [-0.28, 0.48] higher in the intervention group relative to the comparison group 819 (3), 24 months from baseline ⊕  Very low2 Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks assist in interpreting the magnitude of these results: small (SD = 0.2), medium (SD = 0.5), and large (SD = 0.8)
1 Downgraded two levels for risk of bias and one level for imprecision
2 Downgraded two levels for risk of bias, one level for imprecision and one level for inconsistency
Table 5.6: Summary GRADE quality assessment for education outcomes — Coaching and Peer Support programmes
Outcomes Estimated risk in comparison group Estimated risk in intervention group Relative effect (95% CI) Number of participants (studies), follow up Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) Comments
Completed high school or equivalent qualification 16-24 months from baseline The proportion of young people who graduated from high school was on average 0.42 SDs 95% CI: [-0.05, 0.90] higher in the intervention group relative to the comparison group 107 (2), 16-24 months from baseline ⊕  Very low1 Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks assist in interpreting the magnitude of these results: small (SD = 0.2), medium (SD = 0.5), and large (SD = 0.8)
Commenced post-secondary education 16-24 months from baseline The proportion of young people who attended post-secondary education was on average 0.60 SDs 95%CI: [0.11, 1.08] lower in the intervention group relative to the comparison group 107 (2), 16-24 months from baseline ⊕  Very low2 Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks assist in interpreting the magnitude of these results: small (SD = 0.2), medium (SD = 0.5), and large (SD = 0.8)
1 Downgraded one level for risk of bias and two levels for imprecision
2 Downgraded one level for risk of bias and two levels for imprecision
Table 5.7: Detailed GRADE quality assessment for education outcomes — Independent Living Programmes
Evidence can be downgraded
Evidence can be upgraded
Outcome Risk of bias Imprecision Inconsistency Indirectness Publication bias Large magnitude of effect Dose- response gradient Effect of plausible residual confounding
Completed high school or equivalent qualification 24 months from baseline The proportion of information from studies at high risk of bias (n=2) out of the total (n=3) studies included in the meta-analysis is sufficient to affect the interpretation of results and weaken confidence in the results, downgrade 2 levels Estimate comes from a small number of included studies (n=3) with wide confidence intervals that span the line of no effect, downgrade 1 level No evidence of inconsistency, no change to rating No evidence of indirectness, no change to rating No evidence of publication bias observed, no change to rating No large magnitude or effect observed, no change to rating No dose response gradient observed, no change to rating Not applicable for RCT, no change to rating
Commenced university 24 months from baseline The proportion of information from studies at high risk of bias (n=2) out of the total (n=3) studies included in the meta-analysis is sufficient to affect the interpretation of results and weaken confidence in the results, downgrade 2 levels Estimate comes from a small number of included studies (n=3) with wide confidence intervals that span the line of no effect, downgrade 1 level Some evidence of inconsistency in heterogeneity, downgrade 1 level No evidence of indirectness, no change to rating No evidence of publication bias observed, no change to rating No large magnitude or effect observed, no change to rating No dose response gradient observed, no change to rating Not applicable for RCT, no change to rating
Table 5.8: Detailed GRADE quality assessment for education outcomes — Coaching and Peer Suppport programmes
Evidence can be downgraded
Evidence can be upgraded
Outcome Risk of bias Imprecision Inconsistency Indirectness Publication bias Large magnitude of effect Dose- response gradient Effect of plausible residual confounding
Completed high school or equivalent qualification 16-24 months from baseline The proportion of information from studies with some concerns (n=2) included in the meta-analysis is sufficient to affect the interpretation of results and weaken confidence in the results, downgrade 1 level Estimate comes from a small number of included studies (n=2), with small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals that span the line of no effect, downgrade 2 levels No evidence of inconsistency, no change to rating No evidence of indirectness, no change to rating No evidence of publication bias observed, no change to rating No large magnitude or effect observed, no change to rating No dose response gradient observed, no change to rating Not applicable for RCT, no change to rating
Commenced post-secondary education 16-24 months from baseline The proportion of information from studies with some concerns (n=2) included in the meta-analysis is sufficient to affect the interpretation of results and weaken confidence in the results, downgrade 1 level Estimate comes from a small number of included studies (n=2), with small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals that span the line of no effect, downgrade 2 levels No evidence of inconsistency, no change to rating No evidence of indirectness, no change to rating No evidence of publication bias observed, no change to rating No large magnitude or effect observed, no change to rating No dose response gradient observed, no change to rating Not applicable for RCT, no change to rating

5.4 Economic or employment

Table 5.9: Summary GRADE quality assessment for economic or employment outcomes — Independent Living Programmes
Outcomes Estimated risk in comparison group Estimated risk in intervention group Relative effect (95% CI) Number of participants (studies), follow up Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) Comments
Earnings (in last 12 months) 24 months from baseline The earnings of young people who participated in the intervention was on average - 0.07 SDs 95% CI: [-0.21, 0.07] lower in the intervention group relative to the comparison group 819 (3), 24 months from baseline ⊕  Very low3 Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks assist in interpreting the magnitude of these results: small (SD = 0.2), medium (SD = 0.5), and large (SD = 0.8)
Current employment 24 months from baseline The proportion of young people who were currently employed at the time of their last interview was on average -0.06 SDs 95% CI: [-0.21, 0.09] lower in the intervention group relative to the comparison group 819 (3), 24 months from baseline ⊕  Very low1 Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks assist in interpreting the magnitude of these results: small (SD = 0.2), medium (SD = 0.5), and large (SD = 0.8)
Receipt of any financial assistance 24 months from baseline The proportion of young people who received any financial assistance was on average -0.08 SDs 95% CI: [-0.68, 0.52] lower in the intervention group relative to the comparison group 819 (3), 24 months from baseline ⊕  Very low4 Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks assist in interpreting the magnitude of these results: small (SD = 0.2), medium (SD = 0.5), and large (SD = 0.8)
Net worth 24 months from baseline The net worth of young people who participated in the intervention was on average 0.06 SDs 95% CI: [-0.08, 0.19] higher in the intervention group relative to the comparison group 819 (3), 24 months from baseline ⊕  Very low2 Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks assist in interpreting the magnitude of these results: small (SD = 0.2), medium (SD = 0.5), and large (SD = 0.8)
1 Downgraded two levels for risk of bias and one level for imprecision
2 Downgraded two levels for risk of bias and one level for imprecision
3 Downgraded two levels for risk of bias, one level for imprecision and one level for inconsistency
4 Downgraded two levels for risk of bias and one level for imprecision
Table 5.10: Summary GRADE quality assessment for economic or employment outcomes — Coaching and Peer Support programmes
Outcomes Estimated risk in comparison group Estimated risk in intervention group Relative effect (95% CI) Number of participants (studies), follow up Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) Comments
Employed 16-24 months from baseline The proportion of young people who were employed at 12-months follow up was on average 0.24 SDs 95% CI: [-0.16, 0.64] higher in the intervention group relative to the comparison group 136 (2), 16-24 months from baseline ⊕  Very low1 Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks assist in interpreting the magnitude of these results: small (SD = 0.2), medium (SD = 0.5), and large (SD = 0.8)
1 Downgraded one level for risk of bias and two levels for imprecision
Table 5.11: Detailed GRADE quality assessment for economic or employment outcomes — Independent Living Programmes
Evidence can be downgraded
Evidence can be upgraded
Outcome Risk of bias Imprecision Inconsistency Indirectness Publication bias Large magnitude of effect Dose- response gradient Effect of plausible residual confounding
Earnings (in last 12 months) 24 months from baseline The proportion of information from studies at high risk of bias (n=2) out of the total (n=3) studies included in the meta-analysis is sufficient to affect the interpretation of results and weaken confidence in the results, downgrade 2 levels Estimate comes from a small number of included studies (n=3) with wide confidence intervals that span the line of no effect, downgrade 1 level No evidence of inconsistency, no change to rating No evidence of indirectness, no change to rating No evidence of publication bias observed, no change to rating No large magnitude or effect observed, no change to rating No dose response gradient observed, no change to rating Not applicable for RCT, no change to rating
Current employment 24 months from baseline The proportion of information from studies at high risk of bias (n=2) out of the total (n=3) studies included in the meta-analysis is sufficient to affect the interpretation of results and weaken confidence in the results, downgrade 2 levels Estimate comes from a small number of included studies (n=3) with wide confidence intervals that span the line of no effect, downgrade 1 level No evidence of inconsistency, no change to rating No evidence of indirectness, no change to rating No evidence of publication bias observed, no change to rating No large magnitude or effect observed, no change to rating No dose response gradient observed, no change to rating Not applicable for RCT, no change to rating
Receipt of any financial assistance 24 months from baseline The proportion of information from studies at high risk of bias (n=2) out of the total (n=3) studies included in the meta-analysis is sufficient to affect the interpretation of results and weaken confidence in the results, downgrade 2 levels Estimate comes from a small number of included studies (n=3) with wide confidence intervals that span the line of no effect, downgrade 1 level Some evidence of inconsistency in heterogeneity, downgrade 1 level No evidence of indirectness, no change to rating No evidence of publication bias observed, no change to rating No large magnitude or effect observed, no change to rating No dose response gradient observed, no change to rating Not applicable for RCT, no change to rating
Net worth 24 months from baseline The proportion of information from studies at high risk of bias (n=2) out of the total (n=3) studies included in the meta-analysis is sufficient to affect the interpretation of results and weaken confidence in the results, downgrade 2 levels Estimate comes from a small number of included studies (n=3) with wide confidence intervals that span the line of no effect, downgrade 1 level No evidence of inconsistency, no change to rating No evidence of indirectness, no change to rating No evidence of publication bias observed, no change to rating No large magnitude or effect observed, no change to rating No dose response gradient observed, no change to rating Not applicable for RCT, no change to rating
Table 5.12: Detailed GRADE quality assessment for economic or employment outcomes — Coaching and Peer Support programmes
Evidence can be downgraded
Evidence can be upgraded
Outcome Risk of bias Imprecision Inconsistency Indirectness Publication bias Large magnitude of effect Dose- response gradient Effect of plausible residual confounding
Employed 16-24 months from baseline The proportion of information from studies with some concerns (n=2) included in the meta-analysis is sufficient to affect the interpretation of results and weaken confidence in the results, downgrade 1 level Estimate comes from a small number of included studies (n=2), with small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals that span the line of no effect, downgrade 2 levels No evidence of inconsistency, no change to rating No evidence of indirectness, no change to rating No evidence of publication bias observed, no change to rating No large magnitude or effect observed, no change to rating No dose response gradient observed, no change to rating Not applicable for RCT, no change to rating

5.5 Criminal and delinquent behaviour

Table 5.13: Summary GRADE quality assessment for exposure to violence outcomes — Independent Living Programmes
Outcomes Estimated risk in comparison group Estimated risk in intervention group Relative effect (95% CI) Number of participants (studies), follow up Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) Comments
Number of delinquent acts committed (in last 12 months) 24 months from baseline The proportion of young people who committed one or more delinquent acts during the study period was on average -0.03 SDs 95% CI: [-0.17, 0.11] lower in the intervention group relative to the comparison group 819 (3), 24 months from baseline ⊕  Very low1 Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks assist in interpreting the magnitude of these results: small (SD = 0.2), medium (SD = 0.5), and large (SD = 0.8)
1 Downgraded two levels for risk of bias and one level for imprecision
Table 5.14: Detailed GRADE quality assessment for exposure to violence outcomes — Independent Living Programmes
Evidence can be downgraded
Evidence can be upgraded
Outcome Risk of bias Imprecision Inconsistency Indirectness Publication bias Large magnitude of effect Dose- response gradient Effect of plausible residual confounding
Number of delinquent acts committed (in last 12 months) 24 months from baseline The proportion of information from studies at high risk of bias (n=2) out of the total (n=3) studies included in the meta-analysis is sufficient to affect the interpretation of results and weaken confidence in the results, downgrade 2 levels Estimate comes from a small number of included studies (n=3) with wide confidence intervals that span the line of no effect, downgrade 1 level No evidence of inconsistency, no change to rating No evidence of indirectness, no change to rating No evidence of publication bias observed, no change to rating No large magnitude or effect observed, no change to rating No dose response gradient observed, no change to rating Not applicable for RCT, no change to rating

5.6 Risky Behaviour

Table 5.15: Summary GRADE quality assessment for risky behaviour outcomes — Independent Living Programmes
Outcomes Estimated risk in comparison group Estimated risk in intervention group Relative effect (95% CI) Number of participants (studies), follow up Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) Comments
Becoming pregnant (in last 12 months) 24 months from baseline The proportion of young women who became pregnant was on average 0.04 SDs 95% CI: [-0.18, 0.26] higher in the intervention group relative to the comparison group 495 (3), 24 months from baseline ⊕  Very low1 Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks assist in interpreting the magnitude of these results: small (SD = 0.2), medium (SD = 0.5), and large (SD = 0.8)
1 Downgraded two levels for risk of bias and one level for imprecision
Table 5.16: Detailed GRADE quality assessment for risky behaviour outcomes — Independent Living Programmes
Evidence can be downgraded
Evidence can be upgraded
Outcome Risk of bias Imprecision Inconsistency Indirectness Publication bias Large magnitude of effect Dose- response gradient Effect of plausible residual confounding
Becoming pregnant (in last 12 months) 24 months from baseline The proportion of information from studies at high risk of bias (n=2) out of the total (n=3) studies included in the meta-analysis is sufficient to affect the interpretation of results and weaken confidence in the results, downgrade 2 levels Estimate comes from a small number of included studies (n=3) with wide confidence intervals that span the line of no effect, downgrade 1 level No evidence of inconsistency, no change to rating No evidence of indirectness, no change to rating No evidence of publication bias observed, no change to rating No large magnitude or effect observed, no change to rating No dose response gradient observed, no change to rating Not applicable for RCT, no change to rating

5.7 Life Skills

Table 5.17: Summary GRADE quality assessment for Life Skills outcomes — Independent Living Programmes
Outcomes Estimated risk in comparison group Estimated risk in intervention group Relative effect (95% CI) Number of participants (studies), follow up Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) Comments
Overall preparedness 24months from baseline The overall preparedness score of young people who received the intervention was on average -0.04 SDs 95% CI: [-0.18, 0.09] lower relative to the comparison group 819 (3), 24 months from baseline ⊕  Very low1 Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks assist in interpreting the magnitude of these results: small (SD = 0.2), medium (SD = 0.5), and large (SD = 0.8)
Job-related preparedness 24 months from baseline The job-related preparedness score of young people who received the intervention was on average -0.01 SDs 95% CI: [-0.15, 0.13] lower relative to the comparison group 819 (3), 24 months from baseline ⊕  Very low2 Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks assist in interpreting the magnitude of these results: small (SD = 0.2), medium (SD = 0.5), and large (SD = 0.8)
Having any financial accounts 24 months from baseline The proportion of young people who had any financial accounts was on average -0.01 SDs 95% CI: [-0.17, 0.16] lower in the intervention group relative to the comparison group 819 (3), 24 months from baseline ⊕  Very low3 Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks assist in interpreting the magnitude of these results: small (SD = 0.2), medium (SD = 0.5), and large (SD = 0.8)
Having a social security number 24 months from baseline The proportion of young people who had a social security number was on average 0.04 SDs 95% CI: [-0.26, 0.34] higher in the intervention group relative to the comparison group 819 (3), 24 months from baseline ⊕  Very low4 Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks assist in interpreting the magnitude of these results: small (SD = 0.2), medium (SD = 0.5), and large (SD = 0.8)
Having a birth certificate 24 months from baseline The proportion of young people who had a birth certificate was on average 0.24 SDs 95% CI: [-0.00, 0.48] higher in the intervention group relative to the comparison group 819 (3), 24 months from baseline ⊕  Very low5 Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks assist in interpreting the magnitude of these results: small (SD = 0.2), medium (SD = 0.5), and large (SD = 0.8)
Having a driver’s licence 24 months from baseline The proportion of young people who had a driver’s licence was on average 0.10 SDs 95% CI: [-0.29, 0.48] higher in the intervention group relative to the comparison group 819 (3), 24 months from baseline ⊕  Very low6 Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks assist in interpreting the magnitude of these results: small (SD = 0.2), medium (SD = 0.5), and large (SD = 0.8)
1 Downgraded two levels for risk of bias and one level for imprecision
2 Downgraded two levels for risk of bias and one level for imprecision
3 Downgraded two levels for risk of bias and one level for imprecision
4 Downgraded two levels for risk of bias and one level for imprecision
5 Downgraded two levels for risk of bias and one level for imprecision
6 Downgraded two levels for risk of bias, one level for imprecision and one level for inconsistency
Table 5.18: Detailed GRADE quality assessment for Life Skills outcomes — Independent Living Programmes
Evidence can be downgraded
Evidence can be upgraded
Outcome Risk of bias Imprecision Inconsistency Indirectness Publication bias Large magnitude of effect Dose- response gradient Effect of plausible residual confounding
Overall preparedness 24months from baseline The proportion of information from studies at high risk of bias (n=2) out of the total (n=3) studies included in the meta-analysis is sufficient to affect the interpretation of results and weaken confidence in the results, downgrade 2 levels Estimate comes from a small number of included studies (n=3) with confidence intervals that span the line of no effect, downgrade 1 level No evidence of inconsistency, no change to rating No evidence of indirectness, no change to rating No evidence of publication bias observed, no change to rating No large magnitude or effect observed, no change to rating No dose response gradient observed, no change to rating Not applicable for RCT, no change to rating
Job-related preparedness 24 months from baseline The proportion of information from studies at high risk of bias (n=2) out of the total (n=3) studies included in the meta-analysis is sufficient to affect the interpretation of results and weaken confidence in the results, downgrade 2 levels Estimate comes from a small number of included studies (n=3) with confidence intervals that span the line of no effect, downgrade 1 level No evidence of inconsistency, no change to rating No evidence of indirectness, no change to rating No evidence of publication bias observed, no change to rating No large magnitude or effect observed, no change to rating No dose response gradient observed, no change to rating Not applicable for RCT, no change to rating
Having any financial accounts 24 months from baseline The proportion of information from studies at high risk of bias (n=2) out of the total (n=3) studies included in the meta-analysis is sufficient to affect the interpretation of results and weaken confidence in the results, downgrade 2 levels Estimate comes from a small number of included studies (n=3) with confidence intervals that span the line of no effect, downgrade 1 level No evidence of inconsistency, no change to rating No evidence of indirectness, no change to rating No evidence of publication bias observed, no change to rating No large magnitude or effect observed, no change to rating No dose response gradient observed, no change to rating Not applicable for RCT, no change to rating
Having a social security number 24 months from baseline The proportion of information from studies at high risk of bias (n=2) out of the total (n=3) studies included in the meta-analysis is sufficient to affect the interpretation of results and weaken confidence in the results, downgrade 2 levels Estimate comes from a small number of included studies (n=3) with confidence intervals that span the line of no effect, downgrade 1 level No evidence of inconsistency, no change to rating No evidence of indirectness, no change to rating No evidence of publication bias observed, no change to rating No large magnitude or effect observed, no change to rating No dose response gradient observed, no change to rating Not applicable for RCT, no change to rating
Having a birth certificate 24 months from baseline The proportion of information from studies at high risk of bias (n=2) out of the total (n=3) studies included in the meta-analysis is sufficient to affect the interpretation of results and weaken confidence in the results, downgrade 2 levels Estimate comes from a small number of included studies (n=3) with confidence intervals that span the line of no effect, downgrade 1 level No evidence of inconsistency, no change to rating No evidence of indirectness, no change to rating No evidence of publication bias observed, no change to rating No large magnitude or effect observed, no change to rating No dose response gradient observed, no change to rating Not applicable for RCT, no change to rating
Having a driver’s licence 24 months from baseline The proportion of information from studies at high risk of bias (n=2) out of the total (n=3) studies included in the meta-analysis is sufficient to affect the interpretation of results and weaken confidence in the results, downgrade 2 levels Estimate comes from a small number of included studies (n=3) with confidence intervals that span the line of no effect, downgrade 1 level Some evidence of inconsistency in heterogeneity, downgrade 1 level No evidence of indirectness, no change to rating No evidence of publication bias observed, no change to rating No large magnitude or effect observed, no change to rating No dose response gradient observed, no change to rating Not applicable for RCT, no change to rating

6 PRISMA 2020 Checklist

Table 6.1: PRISMA 2020 Checklist
Section and Topic Item # Checklist item Location where item is reported
TITLE NA NA NA
Title 1 Identify the report as a systematic review. In the article title
ABSTRACT NA NA NA
Abstract 2 See the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist. Checklist satisfied
INTRODUCTION NA NA NA
Rationale 3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge. In section: “Why is it important to do this review?”
Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of the objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses. In section: “Objectives”
METHODS NA NA NA
Eligibility criteria 5 Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies were grouped for the syntheses. In section “Selection criteria”
Information sources 6 Specify all databases, registers, websites, organisations, reference lists and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies. Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted. In section “Search methods”
Search strategy 7 Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites, including any filters and limits used. In supplementary material, hosted online on Github
Selection process 8 Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. In section “Data collection”
Data collection process 9 Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. In section “Data collection”
Data items 10a List and define all outcomes for which data were sought. Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g. for all measures, time points, analyses), and if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect. In section “Data collection”
NA 10b List and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g. participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources). Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information. In section “Data collection”
Study risk of bias assessment 11 Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. In section: “Assessment of bias and confidence in results”
Effect measures 12 Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g. risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results. In section: “Measure of treatment effect”
Synthesis methods 13a Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (e.g. tabulating the study intervention characteristics and comparing against the planned groups for each synthesis (item #5)). In section: “Synthesis of results”
NA 13b Describe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling of missing summary statistics, or data conversions. In section: “Measure of treatment effect”
NA 13c Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses. In section: “Synthesis of results”
NA 13d Describe any methods used to synthesize results and provide a rationale for the choice(s). If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used. In section: “Synthesis of results”
NA 13e Describe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (e.g. subgroup analysis, meta-regression). In section: “Assessment of bias and confidence in results” and “Assessment of heterogeneity”
NA 13f Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the synthesized results. In section: “Subgroup and sensitivity analysis”
Reporting bias assessment 14 Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases). In section: “Assessment of bias and confidence in results”
Certainty assessment 15 Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome. In section: “Assessment of bias and confidence in results”
RESULTS NA NA NA
Study selection 16a Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram. Provided in Figure 2.
NA 16b Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded. In supplementary material, hosted online on Github
Study characteristics 17 Cite each included study and present its characteristics. Provided in Table 1.
Risk of bias in studies 18 Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study. Provided in Figure 3 and Figure 4.
Results of individual studies 19 For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (e.g. confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots. Provided in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9
Results of syntheses 20a For each synthesis, briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies. Provided in discussion of results for each outcome. Additional detail for GRADE assessment provided in supplementary material.
NA 20b Present results of all statistical syntheses conducted. If meta-analysis was done, present for each the summary estimate and its precision (e.g. confidence/credible interval) and measures of statistical heterogeneity. If comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect. Provided in discussion of results for each outcome and Figures 5 & 6.
NA 20c Present results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results. In supplementary material, hosted online on Github
NA 20d Present results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesized results. Provided in section “Subgroup and sensitivity analysis”
Reporting biases 21 Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed. In supplementary material, hosted online on Github
Certainty of evidence 22 Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed. Provided in discussion of results for each outcome. Additional detail for GRADE assessment provided in supplementary material.
DISCUSSION NA NA NA
Discussion 23a Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence. Provided in sections: “Main results for transitions support programs” and “Main results for extended care policies”
NA 23b Discuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review. Provided in section: “Conclusion”
NA 23c Discuss any limitations of the review processes used. Provided in “Implications for research”
NA 23d Discuss implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research. Provided in sections: “Implications for research” and “Implications for policy and practice”
OTHER INFORMATION NA NA NA
Registration and protocol 24a Provide registration information for the review, including register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered. In section: “Search Methods”
NA 24b Indicate where the review protocol can be accessed, or state that a protocol was not prepared. In section: “Search Methods”
NA 24c Describe and explain any amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol. In section: “Deviations from the protocol”
Support 25 Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for the review, and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review. NA
Competing interests 26 Declare any competing interests of review authors. NA
Availability of data, code and other materials 27 Report which of the following are publicly available and where they can be found: template data collection forms; data extracted from included studies; data used for all analyses; analytic code; any other materials used in the review. In supplementary material, hosted online on Github

References

Beal, S. J., Nause, K., Lutz, N., & Greiner, M. V. (2020). The Impact of Health Care Education on Utilization Among Adolescents Preparing for Emancipation From Foster Care. Journal of Adolescent Health, 66(6), 740–746. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.12.009
Braciszewski, J. M., Tzilos Wernette, G. K., Moore, R. S., Bock, B. C., Stout, R. L., & Chamberlain, P. (2018). A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of a Technology-Based Substance Use Intervention for Youth Exiting Foster Care. Children and Youth Services Review, 94, 466–476. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.08.011
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd Edition). New York, NY: Routledge Academic.
Courtney, M. E., & Hook, J. L. (2017). The potential educational benefits of extending foster care to young adults: Findings from a natural experiment. Children and Youth Services Review, 72, 124–132. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.09.030
Courtney, M. E., Valentine, E. J., & Skemer, M. (2019). Experimental evaluation of transitional living services for system-involved youth: Implications for policy and practice. Children and Youth Services Review, 96(June 2018), 396–408. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.11.031
Courtney, M. E., Zinn, A., Johnson, H., & Malm, K. E. (2011). Evaluation of the Massachusetts Adolescent Outreach Program for Youths in Intensive Foster Care: Final Report. Washington DC: Office of Planning, Research; Evaluation, Administration for Children; Families, U.S. Department of Health; Human Services. Retrieved from Office of Planning, Research; Evaluation, Administration for Children; Families, U.S. Department of Health; Human Services website: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/report/evaluation-massachusetts-adolescent-outreach-program-youths-intensive-foster-care-final
Courtney, M. E., Zinn, A., Koralek, A., & Bess, R. J. (2011). Evaluation of the Independent LivingEmployment Services Program, Kern County, California: Final Report. Washington DC: Office of Planning, Research; Evaluation, Administration for Children; Families, U.S. Department of Health; Human Services. Retrieved from Office of Planning, Research; Evaluation, Administration for Children; Families, U.S. Department of Health; Human Services website: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/resource/evaluation-of-the-independent-living-employment-services-program-kern
Courtney, M. E., Zinn, A., Zielewski, E. H., Bess, R. J., & Malm, K. E. (2008). Evaluation of the Life Skills Training Program, Los Angeles County, California: Final Report. Washington DC: Office of Planning, Research; Evaluation And the Children’s Bureau Administration for Children; Families U.S. Department of Health; Human Services.
Geenen, S., Powers, L. E., Phillips, L. A., Nelson, M., McKenna, J., Winges-Yanez, N., … Swank, P. (2015). Better Futures: A Randomized Field Test of a Model for Supporting Young People in Foster Care with Mental Health Challenges to Participate in Higher Education. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 42(2), 150–171. doi: 10.1007/s11414-014-9451-6
Greeson, J. K. P., Garcia, A. R., Kim, M., & Courtney, M. E. (2015). Foster Youth and Social Support: The First RCT of Independent Living Services. Research on Social Work Practice, 25(3), 349–357. doi: 10.1177/1049731514534900
Greeson, J. K. P., Garcia, A. R., Kim, M., Thompson, A. E., & Courtney, M. E. (2015). Development & maintenance of social support among aged out foster youth who received independent living services: Results from the multi-site evaluation of foster youth programs. Children and Youth Services Review, 53, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.03.016
Kim, Y., Ju, E., Rosenberg, R., & Farmer, E. M. Z. (2019). Estimating the effects of independent living services on educational attainment and employment of foster care youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 96(August 2018), 294–301. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.11.048
Lee, J. S., Courtney, M. E., & Hook, J. L. (2012). Formal Bonds During the Transition to Adulthood: Extended Foster Care Support and Criminal/Legal Involvement. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 6(3), 255–279. doi: 10.1080/15548732.2012.683336
Leip, L. A. (2020). Impact Evaluation of the True North Program in Broward County, Florida. Washington DC: Office of Family Assistance, Administration for Children; Families, U.S. Department of Health; Human Services.
Lim, S., Singh, T. P., & Gwynn, R. C. (2017). Impact of a Supportive Housing Program on Housing Stability and Sexually Transmitted Infections among Young Adults in New York City Who Were Aging out of Foster Care. American Journal of Epidemiology, 186(3), 297–304. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwx046
Manno, M., Jacobs, E., Alson, J., & Skemer, M. (2014). Moving into Adulthood: Implementation Findings from the Youth Villages Transitional Living Evaluation. New York NY: MDRC. Retrieved from MDRC website: https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/moving_into_adulthhood_fr_2.pdf
Mendes, P., & Rogers, J. (2020). Young People Transitioning from Out-of-Home Care: What are the Lessons from Extended Care Programmes in the USA and England for Australia? British Journal of Social Work, 50(5), 1513–1530. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcaa028
Miller, M., Bales, D., & Hirsh, M. (2020). Extended Foster Care in Washington State: Final Report [Document {Number} 20-05-3201]. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved from Washington State Institute for Public Policy website: https://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1721/Wsipp_Extended-Foster-Care-in-Washington-State-Final-Report_Report.pdf
Powers, L. E., Geenen, S., Powers, J., Pommier-Satya, S., Turner, A., Dalton, L. D., … Swank, P. (2012). My Life: Effects of a longitudinal, randomized study of self-determination enhancement on the transition outcomes of youth in foster care and special education. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(11), 2179–2187. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.07.018
Skemer, M., & Valentine, E. J. (2016). Striving for independence: Two-year impact findings from the Youth Villages transitional living evaluation. New York NY: MDRC. Retrieved from MDRC website: https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Youth%20Villages_2016_FR.pdf
Strahl, B., Breda, A. D. P. van, Mann-Feder, V., & Schröer, W. (2020). A multinational comparison of care-leaving policy and legislation. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 1–16. doi: 10.1017/ics.2020.26
Taylor, D. J. A., Roberts, J., Rose, V., Gyani, A., Harrigan, S., & Shlonsky, A. (2020). Evaluation of the Premier’s Youth Initiative: Final Report. Sydney: Centre for Evidence; Implementation. Retrieved from Centre for Evidence; Implementation website: https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/803236/evaluation-of-the-premiers-youth-initiative.pdf
Valentine, E. J., Skemer, V. M., & Courtney, M. E. (2015). Becoming Adults: One-year impact findings from the Youth Villages Transitional Living Evaluation. New York NY: MDRC.
Zinn, A., & Courtney, M. (2017). Helping foster youth find a job: A random-assignment evaluation of an employment assistance programme for emancipating youth. Child and Family Social Work, 22(1), 155–164. doi: 10.1111/cfs.12212